NCLAT: Unenforced Equitable Mortgage is Corporate Debtor’s Asset, Not to Be Treated as Margin Money  ||  NCLT Approves Hindustan Unilever’s Ice Cream Business Demerger into Kwality Wall’s  ||  Supreme Court: Bar Councils Cannot Charge Over Rs 750 for Enrollment or Withhold Applicants’ Docs  ||  SC Cancels POCSO Conviction, Observing Crime Resulted from Love, Not Lust, After Marriage  ||  Supreme Court: Advocates Can be Summoned Only under S.132 BSA Exceptions with Prior Officer Approval  ||  Allahabad HC: Juvenile Conviction Cannot be Treated as Disqualification for Government Jobs  ||  Delhi HC: DV Act Rights of Daughter-in-Law Cannot Deny In-Laws’ Right to Reside in Home  ||  Delhi HC: Waitlist Panel Cannot Be Segregated, Vacancies Must Be Filled From Valid Waitlist  ||  Delhi HC: Matrimonial FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Couple’s Settlement Agreement is Not Executed  ||  Delhi HC Bars All India Carrom Federation from Using “India” or “Indian” in its Name    

Maha Laxmi Hosiery vs. Govind Singh and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (06 Jun 2022)

In proceedings before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act are not applicable

MANU/DE/2111/2022

Labour and Industrial

The Appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking setting aside of the order/judgment passed by the learned Commissioner, Employee Compensation. The learned Commissioner, while passing the impugned order allowed the claim petition of the workman and awarded him compensation of Rs.2,87,136 alongwith interest @ 12% from 24.04.2008 till deposit.

In view of the fact that the statement of the workman is supported by co-workman-Rakesh Sharma, as well as reports of the (i) Labour Inspector, (ii) Inspector of Factories and (iii) Deputy Director, ESIC, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Commissioner rightly reached at the conclusion that respondent No.1/workman was working with the firm(s)/management in question at the time of accident and that the accident occurred during the course of his employment on 24.03.2008.

Although the appellant has raised a contention that the reports were not proved by the concerned scribe, this Court deems it apposite to refer in this regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Batish v. Ranjit alias Ranbir Kaur and Others, wherein it was held that in proceedings before the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Act are not applicable. The Commissioner can lay down his own procedures and for the purpose of arriving at the truth, rely upon such documents which are produced before it. Respondent No.1/workman was able to establish his case before the learned Commissioner. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : COMPENSATION   GRANT   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved